The advantages that franchisees regarded as the most relevant
were: "Known Company Name or Trade Mark," "Proven
Business Concept," "Economics of Scale,"
"Franchisor Support," "Greater Job
Satisfaction" and "Opportunity for Family
Business". These findings are closely parallelled by those
of the reviewed literature. For instance, the numerous studies
conducted by John Stanworth and his various research associates
seem to have arrived at somewhat similar conclusions.

Some disadvantages were also discovered: "Fees,"
"Excessive Working Hours" and "Contractual
Issues" were clearly the most frequently cited
disadvantages. These findings correlated with the suggestions of
Falbe & Dandridge (1992, 48) who indicated that one of the
most basic conflicts is failure of either the franchisor or
franchisee to live up to the terms of the franchise agreement.
Overall, Finnish franchisees´ mean scores were higher on the
advantage perceptions than on the disadvantage perceptions. Also,
standard deviations were higher in disadvantages.

The perceptions of advantages, disadvantages and
characteristics had a dimensional structure. Three factors were
delineated to portray the advantages (i.e. "Rewarding
Work," "External Stimuli and Support for
Development" and "Less Difficult Start-Up"),
another three to portray disadvantages (i.e. "Reduced
Autonomy," "Contract and Partner Issues" and
"Fees") and four factors to describe franchisees´
entrepreneurial characteristics (i.e. "Conformists,"
"Self-Confident and Self-Directed,"
"Lookers-Around" and "Opportunists").

Not surprisingly, Finnish franchisees want to be successful
and regard themselves as customer-oriented people who take
responsibility for their own actions. Furthermore, they tend to
be rather self-confident, but they are often neither confident
nor willing enough to diversify or considerably expand their
businesses. They seem to possess some of the typical
entrepreneurial personality characteristics. Moreover, our
results tend to support the suggestions of Anderson et al.
(1992), namely that franchising may also offer an alternative
avenue for entrepreneurship to individuals who otherwise are
perhaps not so well-prepared for self-employment. Some of the
past research supports this by indicating that franchisors prefer
team players to franchisees who want to `own´ their businesses
(Kursh 1986). Also, English & Hoy (1995) argued that
franchisors do not want innovation and creativity, instead they
favor replication and conformity.

The complexity of franchising can be best understood by
investigating paradoxicalness. This may enable us to focus more
sharply on both sides of the story. In fact, both paradoxes and
reaction pairs were discovered in conceptual and empirical
sections of the present study. Earlier literature demonstrates
this very clearly (see Table 1). Typical examples include the
"conflict thinking approach" by Falbe & Dandridge
(1992, 48) and the findings of Dant et al. (1992) which showed
that higher franchisee success was often related to a perception
of both high autonomy and high dependence on the franchisor,
varying across domains of activity.

Moreover, our empirical findings indicated that the world of
franchisees included many ambiguous and contradictory features.
Firstly, these were related to the highly dynamic and unique
nature of a satisfactory franchisee-franchisor relationship. It
was found that support given by the franchisor may gradually lose
some of its value if it is not consistently updated and renewed.
Thus, for instance, franchise fees often started to become, first
a source of dissatisfaction, and later even a potential source of
conflict. As time goes by franchisees may sometimes feel that
they are no longer receiving adequate and relevant assistance and
support from the franchisor to justify paying the old rates much
less the new, often higher rates. Therefore, the support and
assistance measures provided by the franchisor must be
consistently updated and renewed. If this does not happen, fees,
standardized concept and strict rules set down by franchisors may
gradually become, first a source of dissatisfaction, and later
even a potential source of conflict.

Secondly, the results implied that although defining the
franchisor´s role as entrepreneur is generally accepted,
entrepreneurial activities by franchisee may be viewed as a
paradox. As the business environment becomes more and more
competitive, the need for entrepreneurial activity by the
franchisee tends to increase dramatically (Falbe et al., 1991,
13). On the other hand, the different franchisee perceptions of
advantages and disadvantages were related to individuals and
particularly to their personality characteristics and learning
curves. The more entrepreneurial the franchisee was the more
likely he or she was to conflict with the franchisor´s goals.
Each franchisor-franchisee relationship appeared to be unique and
highly dynamic in nature. In this context, the results were
congruent with the earlier findings of Stanworth et al. (1995)
who noticed that the motivational drives of franchisees tend to
change as they become more experienced and particularly more
successful.

Thirdly, a paradoxical aspect was discovered in the job
contents. Franchisees felt that work was often internally
rewarding, but at the same time in some areas constrained.
Paradoxes were also present in the development of franchising
concepts. On the one hand, the franchisees appreciated the
support and stimuli provided by the franchise chain, but on the
other hand they simultaneously faced some contractual and
network-related obstacles. Finally, there might be a paradox in
profitability. The franchisees gained satisfaction from a cheaper
and easier start-up but they later tended to experience increased
dissatisfaction with regular payments.

The implications can be grouped into three categories:
franchising research, education and practice. Regarding research
implications, we suggest that paradox approach and reaction pair
thinking are useful tools to describe the dynamic and complex
nature of franchising. In addition, more longitudinal franchising
research is needed, especially in the areas of the learning
curves of franchisees and the life cycles of franchising
concepts. In fact, perhaps the focus of interest should be
widened. Besides examining traits and personalities, we should
look more carefully into the highly dynamic relationships between
franchisors and franchisees.

Moreover, the different behavioral features among franchisees
should be taken into account when training and education is
provided. It appears that some franchisees are conformists in
nature, while others are very self-confident and self-directed.
Also, many of them manifest characteristics that are typical of
"Growth-Seeking Opportunists", while some can be better
termed as "Lookers-Around". These features are
reflected in the way that the training and education provided by
a franchisor are appreciated, especially in the early stages of
the delicate franchisor-franchisee relationship. For instance, if
training is given in a "stipulated" way, it may
eventually become the source of dissatisfaction among the more
entrepreneurial and/or experienced franchisees who often dislike
strict control. In order to ensure a stimulating and rewarding
relationship in practice, franchisors should not limit franchisee
autonomy or responsibility too much. Because of the dynamic
nature of franchising, contract issues do not seem to lose their
importance after signing. Thus, the balance between rights and
obligations should be continuously examined and related to the
fees and support involved.

A cautious franchisor must surely pay attention to the
above-mentioned issues in order to manage the paradoxicalness
inherent in this complex relationship. For mutual benefit, the
franchisor needs to promote a climate of trust and cooperation,
including the constant renewal and updating of the support
measures. Otherwise, the entrepreneurial drive and commitment
shown by the franchisee might suffer as a result of the
increasing frustration and dissatisfaction.